Cecil on grandpa's lap
That is a very cute shot!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Cecil on grandpa's lap
King Charles Cavalier Spaniel - she's about 4 1/2 months old.
Nice! Shot using one of your vintage lenses, no doubt?
Testing the new Samyang SFH-14 filter holder that was recently published.
The holder comes with double slideways so i used two filters (Cokin 154 ND8 + Cokin 121M ND4) to take this photo.
I can assure you that it will be plenty of comparison shots with the Otus. I need to know what the extra $3k is worthGot mine from Japanphoto (Norwegian mail order) today No time to try it before the weekend though.I find it weird that there is only 1 shop in Norway that have the lens in stock. When I preordered they said they will begin shipping next month.. Maybe this afternoon I will receive the lens, if the norwegian postal doesn't screw up with its delivery. They're notoriously known for their long delivery times.
Ordered from FotoVideo on Saturday and still haven't received tracking number and confirmation that it has been sent yet, so combine that with the slowness of "Posten" and we're looking at Friday instead of Tuesday.
Let us know how you like it Eldar
I am also crossing my fingers for the AF system. I don´t want to get the same will-it-focus-properly-worry I have with the 35A.
By the way, Canon direct has the 35mm f/2 IS refurbished (with 1 year warranty) for $409 right now. That was enough to get me to finally jump. 3 copies left!!
One more question as I'm probably going to pull the trigger on my next lens in the next few weeks. The Canon's price drop pushed you to seriously consider the 35/2. So my question is, if the Canon stayed at its original price or was the same price as the Sigma today, and you had to make the decision, all over, which would you choose? I understand there were many factors governing your choice and that price was only one them. Just curious how much of an impact price was.
I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but I understand the conundrum as a reviewer. These days it seems like most reviews are published before retail copies are technically available. Waiting until the lens launches to the public means that you lose the early momentum/hits that are so important to building a brand and a website.
Thus the suggestion to test additional lens(es) purchased through normal retail channels, once they become available.
I do appreciate the quandary, but I'd argue that merely adds another potential source of bias (and please note the use of the word potential). If delivering an early review to gain momentum/hits is that important (and I'm sure it is), what if the review is negative? It seems possible that a negative review would result in the reviewer not getting an advance copy of the next lens from that manufacturer, and thus losing out on the momentum/hits for the next round.
The full text of the review indicates a 40% AF miss rate in formal testing, and includes statements like, "...the longer I focus tested this lens, the less sure I was about its focus accuracy," and, "Sometimes, most images are properly focused and when my shots counted, this lens delivered. But sometimes, more images are out of focus than I am comfortable with." To me, that does not equate to, "...occasional AF inconsistency." Which of those statements made it into the concluding paragraph of the review, which is the part most likely to be picked up and quoted, as it was in this post by CRguy?
Quote from: Bryan @ TDPBelow I share ten 100% crops from one of the more-formal focus tests I performed. The subject is a large book properly aligned with the camera at a relatively close focus distance. Starting with a slightly defocused lens, each shot was autofocused using the center AF point that was very comfortably and completely covered by the book. The first 5 and last 5 images from this particular test are presented below and are representative of the larger test group. … The camera was a tripod-mounted EOS 5D Mark III with mirror lockup and the 2-sec self-timer in use.
Of those 10 shots, 4 are sufficiently OOF as to be unusable (3, 4, 6, 10). A 60% hit rate with a static subject and a tripod-mounted camera, particularly one with an excellent AF system, does not inspire confidence.
Also, this is a departure from the norm for Bryan's lens tests (and one, frankly, with which I'm not too pleased):Quote from: Bryan @ TDPMy evaluation lens was a short term loan from Sigma, as they offered the production-grade lens before it was commercially available.
Any time a manufacturer supplies a product to a well-known reviewer, a big unanswered question is whether the provided copy is truly representative of units purchased retail. Clearly, it would be in Sigma's best interest to pre-test a batch of them and pick the best copy they can find for review (in fact, they are supposed to generate measured MTFs for every lens they produce, so they have the data already).
I've always felt that one of the strengths of Bryan's reviews (in addition to their thoroughness and readability) is that he purchases review copies through standard retail channels (B&H may put him near the top of the preorder queue, but that's fine), and therefore avoids the potential confound of bias introduced by testing a 'hand-picked' lens from the manufacturer. I hope Bryan chooses to test one or more copies of the lens purchased retail to see if the results align with the copy provided by Sigma.